Does this mean we have to invade them, too?

OT, so I'm not gonna' jack this thread... just read his stupid book, the man had the intellect of a fifteen year old. (& that was after his editors did their best with it, sad, just sad)

[Ibby]

I didn't say he was a literary genius... just a political one.

Oh yeah, alienating everyone in his cabinet so that half of them tried to kill him...
Sure, a real bright bulb on that one.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

When he was "no longer a threat" due to American airpower, were you in favor of continuing the American airpower? I mean, if he kills a few hundred thousand people, that's their business isn't it?

If I recall properly (I'm nowhere near sure of this), I was for protecting the Kurds with airpower to the point of ensuring sovereignty but against continuing the economic sanctions. But yes, I will say once again that Saddam was an Iraqi problem (though we we can be faulted for supporting the wacko) that should have been solved by an Iraqi bullet. This idea of creating a different culture in Iraq by violent imposition of democracy just doesn't wash. Right now we are looking across the border at Iran's elected leaders. Iraqi elections bring out the same kind of power madness. Reasonable mob rule depends on the mob being reasonable.

I've been very wrong on occasion on how best to repair the damage done by interventionists. The WOT is fast becoming, however, solid evidence of the foolishness of war-making to solve other peoples problems. The risk that was run invading Iraq was obvious to everyone, obvious enough to keep many moral people from running it. This question of who is being moral is one reason why this issue is so emotional. Both sides had moral positions if success was at all likely. War supportors believed the President to have special knowlege and trusted him. He had no special knowlege.

shock denial anger bargaining depression testing acceptance

Bush appears to be reaching the bargaining stage, maybe his supportors should move on as well.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

How he manipulated the so many people (rather than massacre them) is an example of poltiical genius. Genius come good or bad. But I should not have to explain that part again either.

You don't have to explain it - It isn't necessarily true - thats my point! That is just your OPINION nothing more, nothing less. Just because you are enamored with what he accomplished doesn't mean shit. Its just your opinion - you seem to have the two confused - an opinion does not equal a fact, just like most of the info you tout as gospel - they are just a persons interpretation of some raw data not always accurate nor factual.

[piercehawkeye45]

Hitler, Saddam, and all of them were geniuses.

They had an agenda and didn't care about the consequences as long as they completed the agenda. That is why Bush seems like such and idiot right now, he has his own agenda.

[yesman065]

Oh My Pierce, those are fightin words round these parts

[piercehawkeye45]

No matter how much I hate Bush I'm not going to say he is an idiot because I know he has an agenda. He doesn't care about America, plain and simple, he just cares about his agenda and he is accomplishing that.

[Tonchi]

You are right, Bush is not an idiot just because he has an agenda. He is an idiot because of many thousands of other reasons

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Oh My Pierce, those are fightin words round these parts

If those are fight'in words, then it is yesman065 too chock full of emotion - incapable of first learning facts.

Just because yesman065 does not like and does not approve of his actions, then that means he is an idiot? That, so far, has been yesman065 reasoning. Properly posted are those who were geniuses such as Hitler, Saddam, and Stalin. The word genius throws out all personal biases described by 'good and evil'. There is no ‘black and white’ in reality. These men accomplished much in their lifetimes. What is completely irrelevant is yesman065's opinion of those accomplishments. Logic does not judge in terms of 'good and evil'. Logic says every were accomplished people - and their accomplishments, unfortunately, didn't not represent the long term interests of people upon who those accomplishments were imposed. And still no 'good and evil' metric exists. That ‘good and evil’ metric implied by yesman065 is classic of decision based in emotions.

How did George Jr get the naive to support "Mission Accomplished". First he must frame Saddam as evil. That works on those who make decisions based in emotions rather than in reality. Which then begs the question - who really was evil. Him or those who let emotions created their decisions?

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

If those are fight'in words, then it is yesman065 too chock full of emotion - incapable of first learning facts.

That post was a joke, you idiot.

Originally Posted by tw

How did George Jr get the naive to support "Mission Accomplished". First he must frame Saddam as evil. That works on those who make decisions based in emotions rather than in reality.

Are you really saying that Saddam wasn't evil? OMG - please justsify that statement. And you still owe me an apology!

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Are you really saying that Saddam wasn't evil? OMG - please justsify that statement. And you still owe me an apology!

Good and evil are just made up by a certain society, every society has a different take on what is good and what is bad. There are no universal morals so you can't be evil but you also can't be good. By our standards, yes, Saddam was evil, but from different viewpoints, he is looked at as a god.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Good and evil are just made up by a certain society, every society has a different take on what is good and what is bad. There are no universal morals so you can't be evil but you also can't be good. By our standards, yes, Saddam was evil, but from different viewpoints, he is looked at as a god.

Sorry pierce, but I was speaking specifically to the Vulcan who is implying that the Bush Admin. [i]must frame Saddam as evil.[i]

[piercehawkeye45]

The Bush admin did have to frame Bush. If they didn't do that then there would be no reason to go to war.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Are you really saying that Saddam wasn't evil? OMG - please justsify that statement. And you still owe me an apology!

If it was a joke, then the joke was also posted my me. (Covered all options with that post.)

Meanwhile, define evil. Tell me how you know evil using facts. You feel that is evil? Classic emotion. Define evil using facts and logic. After all, Saddam was only doing what kings, queens, and the church did hundreds of years ago. Do you also call the pope evil? If so, then why ... what are your facts?